Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist synthesis

被引:40
|
作者
Waldron, Tamara [1 ]
Carr, Tracey [1 ]
McMullen, Linda [2 ]
Westhorp, Gill [3 ]
Duncan, Vicky [1 ]
Neufeld, Shelley-May [1 ]
Bandura, Lori-Ann [1 ]
Groot, Gary [1 ]
机构
[1] Dept Community Hlth & Epidemiol, Hlth Sci Bldg,107 Wiggins Rd, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E5, Canada
[2] Univ Saskatchewan Arts, Dept Psychol, 154,9 Campus Dr, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A5, Canada
[3] Charles Darwin Univ, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT 0810, Australia
关键词
(3-10 words); shared decision making; Realist review; Mechanisms; Quality improvement; Health systems; Medical decision making; CANCER; CARE; MODEL; PARTICIPATION; FACILITATORS; PREFERENCES; INFORMATION; COMPETENCES; BARRIERS; ONCOLOGY;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-019-4649-1
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Shared Decision-making (SDM), a medical decision-making model, was popularized in the late 1980s in reaction to then predominate paternalistic decision-making, aiming to better meet the needs of patients. Extensive research has been conducted internationally examining the benefits of SDM implementation; however, existing theory on how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why is limited. While literature has shown positive patient, health care provider, and system benefits (SDM outputs), further research is required to understand the nuances of this type of decision-making. As such, we set out to address: "In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved engagement in the Shared Decision-making process?" Methods To achieve our study goals we conducted a seven-step realist synthesis process, which included: (1) preliminary program theory development, (2) search strategy development, (3) selection and appraisal of literature in accordance with realist methodology, (4) data extraction, (5) identification of relevant formal theories, (6) data analysis and synthesis, and (7) formation of a revised program theory with the input of stakeholders. This process was done in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and publication standards for a realist synthesis. Expert consultations were also held to ensure consistency within the SDM literature. Results Through our realist synthesis, we developed a program theory of SDM which includes three contexts (pre-existing relationship, difficulty of decision, and system support), eight mechanism sets (anxiety, trust, perception of other party capacity, perception of time, self-efficacy, world view, perception of capacity to external support, and recognition of decision), and one outcome (engagement in SDM). Conclusions As far as the authors of this paper are aware, this paper is the first to begin unpacking how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why. By examining key mechanism sets and exploring how they facilitate or inhibit SDM, we have produced a program theory that may assist health care professionals, policy makers, and patients. While further research is suggested to further unpack the concepts identified within this paper, this provides an initial understanding into the theory behind SDM. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42017062609.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist synthesis
    Tamara Waldron
    Tracey Carr
    Linda McMullen
    Gill Westhorp
    Vicky Duncan
    Shelley-May Neufeld
    Lori-Ann Bandura
    Gary Groot
    BMC Health Services Research, 20
  • [2] Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol
    Groot, Gary
    Waldron, Tamara
    Carr, Tracey
    McMullen, Linda
    Bandura, Lori-Ann
    Neufeld, Shelley-May
    Duncan, Vicky
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [3] Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol
    Gary Groot
    Tamara Waldron
    Tracey Carr
    Linda McMullen
    Lori-Ann Bandura
    Shelley-May Neufeld
    Vicky Duncan
    Systematic Reviews, 6
  • [4] Development of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in oncology
    Hahlweg, P.
    Mueller, E.
    Hoffmann, J.
    Haerter, M.
    Frosch, D. L.
    Elwyn, G.
    van der Weijden, T.
    Scholl, I.
    ONCOLOGY RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 39 : 23 - 23
  • [5] Shared Decision-Making Is Not Patient Decision-Making
    Birnbrich, Alysa
    McCulloch, Patrick C.
    Kraeutler, Matthew J.
    SPORTS HEALTH-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH, 2023, 15 (04): : 615 - 616
  • [6] Shared decision-making
    Dirksen-Fischer, M
    GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2004, 66 (05) : 318 - 318
  • [7] Shared decision-making
    Steven, K
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2001, 51 (462): : 61 - 62
  • [8] Shared Decision-Making
    Meier, Christoph A.
    THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU, 2022, 79 (08) : 357 - 357
  • [9] Shared decision-making
    Berger, Abi
    BMJ SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2019, 45 (02) : 168 - 168
  • [10] Shared Decision-Making
    Wright, Linda S.
    NEPHROLOGY NURSING JOURNAL, 2022, 49 (06) : 537 - 540